I. MCLE: SC Admin. Order 113-03, Section 2 on Functions (08-05-2003)

August 5, 2003 September 1, 2003

SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 113-03

ESTABLISHING THE MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION OFFICE

WHEREAS, this Court is vested with the power to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar of the Philippines under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the Constitution, and such power includes ensuring delivery by members of the law profession of quality service to the public and the courts through constant upgrading of their knowledge in law;

WHEREAS, in the Resolution of 22 August 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850, the Court adopted the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (MCLE Rules) in order that throughout the career of lawyers in the country "they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the professions and enhance the standards of the practice of law," creating for the purpose the MCLE Committee;

WHEREAS, the MCLE Rules, as amended on 2 October 2001, has been implemented through the MCLE Committee with the assistance of twelve (12) personnel;

WHEREAS, since April 2001, the MCLE Committee, with the assistance of said personnel, has accredited seventy-nine (79) MCLE Providers, and approved the presentation of seven hundred thirty-five (735) activities/lectures/seminars which enabled attending lawyer-participants to earn credit units as required by the MCLE Rules;

WHEREAS, by the ever-increasing number and the frequency of such activities/lectures/seminars, the present personnel under the MCLE can hardly cope with the demands of their jobs in the implementation of the MCLE Program thereby requiring a larger and permanent organizational structure for that purpose;

WHEREAS, the above-stated constitutional mandate of this Court vests the character of permanency to the organizational structure that shall implement the MCLE Program;

WHEREAS, the Special Provision Applicable to the Judiciary of the General Appropriations Act for FY 2003 (Republic Act No. 9206) authorizes the Chief Justice "to formulate and implement the organizational structure of the Judiciary, to fix and determine the salaries, allowances and other benefits of their personnel, and whenever public interest so requires, make adjustments in personal services itemization including, but not limited to the transfer of item or creation of new positions in the Judiciary" consistent with the Constitution and the Court's final autonomy. HIcTDE

NOW, THEREFORE —

SECTION 1.Establishment. — This Court hereby establishes the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office (MCLE Office) as a unit of this Court.

SECTION 2.Functions. — The MCLE Office shall carry out the objectives of mandatory continuing legal education as stated in Rule 1 of the MCLE Rules.

SECTION 3.Governing Board. — The MCLE Committee shall constitute the governing board.

SECTION 4.Officials. — The Officials of the MCLE Office shall be an Executive Officer and an Assistant Executive Officer, who shall be appointed by the Court in accordance with current practice and the Civil Service rules.

The Executive Officers shall be a citizen of the Philippines, a member of good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and with at least five (5) years experience in law practice and thirty-two (32) hours of relevant training in management and supervision. The Executive Officer shall enjoy the rank, salary and privileges of a Chief of Office of Court of this Court, with Salary Grade 29.

The Assistant Executive Officer shall possess the same qualifications as the Executive Officer and shall have the same rank, salary privileges of an Assistant Chief of Office of this Court, with Salary Grade 28.

SECTION 5.Duties and Responsibility of the Executive Officer and the Assistant Executive Officer. — The Executive Officer shall be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Office, including supervision of personnel thereof. The Executive Officer shall regularly consult with and report to the MCLE Committee regrading the implementation of the MCLE Program as provided for by the MCLE Rules.

The Assistant Executive Officer shall assist the Executive Officer in the performance of the latter's duties and responsibilities and shall act in the event of absence or incapacity of said Executive Officer.

SECTION 6.Organizational Set-up of MCLE Office. — The MCLE Office shall have a staffing pattern that shall be approved by the Court.

There shall be two Divisions in the MCLE Office, with the following functions:

(a)The Accreditation, Program Monitoring, Compliance and Evaluation Division shall be responsible for the implementation of Rules 8 to 9 and 11 to 14 of the MCLE Rules, and for such duties and functions as the MCLE Committee, through the Executive Officer, may impose upon it.

(b)The Administrative and Finance Division shall; (i) take charge of all matters affecting personnel, properties, and finance of the MCLE Office; (ii) be responsible for the collection and management of all fees prescribed by the MCLE Rules; (iii) prepare the annual budget proposals for the implementation of MCLE Rules and the operation of the MCLE Office and submit the same, through the Executive Officer, to the MCLE

Committee for review and submission to the Court; and (iv) perform such tasks as the Executive may deem fit and proper.

SECTION 7.Chiefs of the Two Divisions of the MCLE Office. — Each of the two Divisions shall be headed by a Chief of Division who shall hold a position equivalent to that of a Chief Judicial Staff Officer (SG 25). The Assistant Chief of Division shall hold a position equivalent to that of Supervising Judicial Staff Officer (SG 23). They shall be appointed by the Court as recommended by the Selection and Promotions Board and in accordance with Civil Service rules.

SECTION 8.Consultants. — The MCLE Office may, with the prior authorization of the Chief Justice and in accordance with current practice, hire Consultants with expertise and experience in the conduct of activities/lectures/seminars.

SECTION 9.Funding. — The MCLE Office shall be funded initially from savings of the Court until such time as its budget shall have been incorporated in the general appropriations law.

SECTION 10.Effectivity. — This Administrative Order shall take effect on 1 September 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines not later than 15 August 2003. ETHSAI

August 5, 2003.

(SGD.) HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice

(SGD.) JOSUE N. BELLOSILLO(SGD.) REYNATO S. PUNO

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

(SGD.) JOSE C VITUG(SGD.) ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

(SGD.) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING(SGD.) CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

(SGD.) ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ(SGD.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

(SGD.) MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ(SGD.) CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

on leave

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.(SGD.) ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

(SGD.) DANTE O. TINGA

Chief Justice

II. MCLE Resolution No. 01-2007, June 1, 2007 (Exempt Lawyers aged 75 years and above who are not engaged in active law practice, public and private, after complying with requirements)

Mcle MCLE Resolution No. 01-2007

June 1, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINESMANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION OFFICE4th Floor, IBP Building15 Dona Julia Vargas AvenueOrtigas Center, Pasig City

RESOLUTION NO. 01-2007

WHEREAS, there are several lawyer seventy-five (75) years and above, who have filed application for retirement from law practice or exemption from compliance with MCLE requirements for being no longer in active law practice, private or public, under Section 2(a), Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.

WHEREAS, Section 22, Article II of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, provides that any member in good standing who shall have attained the age of seventy-five years, or shall have been a lawyer for forty years, or who shall by reason of physical disability is unable to engage in the practice of law, may be retired from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon a verified petition to the Board of Governors;

WHEREAS, those application for MCLE exemption or retirement were forwarded to the IBP and are still awaiting action by the IBP Board of Governors;

WHEREAS, the MCLE office has been flooded with follow-ups and queries from lawyers requesting for exemption but unwilling to retire from the IBP because they want to remain members of the Bar for the rest of their lives;

WHEREAS, based on Section 1, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850, retired members of the judiciary are exempted with the MCLE requirements even if some of them still engage in the practice of law;

WHEREAS, aware of the plight of lawyer-retirees who refuse to give up their IBP membership, the MCLE Governing Board finds it logical, compassionate, and reasonable to exempt lawyers who are

seventy-five years old and above, from compliance with MCLE requirements and allow them to perform notarial work only for a living;

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 2 (a), Rule 7 of Bar Matter No.850, the MCLE Governing Board resolved to exempt lawyers aged 75 years and above who are not engaged in active law practice, public and private, after complying with the foregoing requirements subject to the following conditions:

a. The applicant shall file a verified application for exemption attaching thereto a duly authenticated certificate of live birth from the National Statistic Office or any acceptable proof of age;

b. An undertaking that he/she will not be engaged in the practice of law other than notarial work;c. Pay the MCLE exemption fee of P1,000.00 under Section 15 (c) of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Implementing Regulations; and

d. Pay IBP dues and other fees required by the IBP Governing Board.

This resolution shall take effect immediately.

26 April 2007

Approved:

MCLE Governing Board

III.Bar Matter no. 1922, as amended (Indicate in all pleadings filed with the Couts the Counsel's MCLE Certificate or Certficate of Exemption)

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila

B.M. No. 1922

June 3, 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION REQUIRED IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 3, 2008

"Bar Matter No. 1922. – Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. – The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE requirement program.

The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the

courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave. (adv216a)

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA(sgd)Clerk of Court

IV. Notaries Public (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, August 1, 2004, Rule III Section 1 on Qualifications)

EN BANC

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC

RESOLUTION

Acting on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 submitted by the Sub-Committee for the Study, Drafting and Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries Public and the Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the Committees on Revision of the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar Matters, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, with modifications, thus:

2004 Rules on Notarial PracticeRULE I

IMPLEMENTATION

SECTION 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

SEC. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the following purposes:

(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;

(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and

(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.

SEC. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.

RULE II

DEFINITIONS

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term "Affirmation" or "Oath" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.

SEC. 3. Commission. - "Commission" refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the written evidence of the authority.

SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - "Copy Certification" refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:

(a) is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable;

(b) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;

(c) compares the instrument or document with the copy; and

(d) determines that the copy is accurate and complete.

SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - "Notarial Register" refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary public.

SEC. 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - "Notarial Act" and "Notarization" refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under these Rules.

SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. - "Notarial Certificate" refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules.

SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notaty. - "Notary Public" and "Notary" refer to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules.

SEC. 10. Principal. - "Principal" refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization.

SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term "regular place of work or business" refers to a

stationary office in the city or province wherein the notary public renders legal and notarial services.

SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

SEC. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - "Official seal" or "Seal" refers to a device for affixing a mark, image or impression on all papers officially signed by the notary public conforming the requisites prescribed by these Rules.

SEC. 14. Signature Witnessing. -The term "signature witnessing" refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public.

SEC. 15. Court. - "Court" refers to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

SEC. 16. Petitioner. - "Petitioner" refers to a person who applies for a notarial commission.

SEC. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. - "Office of the Court Administrator" refers to the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.

SEC. 18. Executive Judge. - "Executive Judge" refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of a city or province who issues a notarial commission.

SEC. 19. Vendor - "Vendor" under these Rules refers to a seller of a notarial seal and shall include a wholesaler or retailer.

SEC. 20. Manufacturer. - "Manufacturer" under these Rules refers to one who produces a notarial seal and shall include an engraver and seal maker.

RULE III

COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.

To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:

(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;

(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;

(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;

(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and

(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.

SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the following:

(a) a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, including the petitioner's date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP membership number; ,

(b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission;

(c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and

(d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs.

SEC. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a notarial commission shall pay the application fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court.

SEC. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall grant the same if:

(a) the petition is sufficient in form and substance;

(b) the petitioner proves the allegations contained in the petition; and

(c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Judge that he has read and fully understood these Rules.

The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a commission and a Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the petitioner.

SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. - (a) The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the hearing shall be conducted and posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication shall be borne by the petitioner. The notice may include more than one petitioner.

(b) The notice shall be substantially in the following form;

NOTICE OF HEARING

Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for notarial commission of (name of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto, received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing.

______________

Executive Judge

SEC. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto. The opposition must be received by the Executive Judge before the date of the summary hearing.

SEC. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The commissioning of a notary public shall be in a formal order signed by the Executive Judge substantially in the following form:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________

This is to certify that (name of notary public) of (regular place of work or business) in (city or province) was on this (date) day of (month) two thousand and (year) commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending the thirty-first day of December (year)

_______________

Executive Judge

SEC. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall be valid for a period of three (3) months from date of issue, unless extended by the Executive Judge.

A mark, image or impression of the seal that may be purchased by the notary public pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to the Executive Judge for approval prior to use.

SEC. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. -The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall substantially be in the following form:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL

This is to authorize (name of notary public) of (city or province) who was commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the thirty-first of December (year) to purchase a notarial seal.

Issued this (day) of (month) (year).

_______________

Executive Judge

SEC. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every person commissioned as notary public shall have only one official seal of office in accordance with these Rules.

SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

SEC. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall keep and maintain a Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction which shall contain, among others, the dates of issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial commissions, and the resignation or death of notaries public. The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the Court Administrator information and data recorded in the register of notaries public. The Office of the Court Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete and updated database of such records.

SEC. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his commission within forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression of the seal of the notary public shall be attached to the application.

Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the notary public in the register of notaries public.

The notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in accordance with these Rules.

SEC. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee mentioned in Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an application for the renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state the reasons therefor.

RULE IV

POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:

(1) acknowledgments;

(2) oaths and affirmations;

(3) jurats;

(4) signature witnessings;

(5) copy certifications; and

(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.

(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:

(1)the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;

(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;

(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and

(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.

(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:

(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;

(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;

(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;

(4) the notary public writes below his signature: "Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two \2] witnesses)"; and

(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:

(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;

(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;

(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and

(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -

(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;

(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral;

(b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and

(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will.

SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not:

(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.

(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall not notarize:

(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or

(b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification.

RULE V

FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For performing a notarial act, a notary public may charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part.

SEC. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary public may charge travel fees and expenses separate and apart from the notarial fees prescribed in the preceding section when traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary public and the person requesting the notarial act agree prior to the travel.

SEC. 3. Prohibited Fees. - No fee or compensation of any kind, except those expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be collected or received for any notarial service.

SEC. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary public shall not require payment of any fees specified herein prior to the performance of a notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon.

Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary public prior to the performance of a notarial act are not subject to refund if the notary public had already traveled but failed to complete in whole or in part the notarial act for reasons beyond his control and without negligence on his part.

SEC. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for services rendered.

A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial fees.

RULE VI

NOTARIAL REGISTER

SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages.

The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists.

For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Court Administrator.

(b) A notary/ public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time.

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:

(1) the entry number and page number;

(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;

(3) the type of notarial act;

(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;

(5) the name and address of each principal;

(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary;

(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity;

(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;

(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and

(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.

(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act.

(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded.

(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.

(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.

(f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same.

(g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact.

(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required.

SEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by each:

(a) principal;

(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and

(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign.

SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, provided;

(1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven through competent evidence of identity as defined in these Rules;

(2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial .register in a separate, dated entry;

(3) the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and

(4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him.

(b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order.

(c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein.

SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.

(b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive Judge.

SEC. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The notary public shall supply a certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees.

RULE VII

SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Official Signature. - In notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall:

(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the notary's commission;

(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and

(c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.

SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province and the word "Philippines" and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the writing appears.

(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is performed and shall be clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of the instrument or document notarized.

(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.

(d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or other otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image, the notary public, after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency,

shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the

notary public is commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.

(e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary public, or the revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall be destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event that the missing, lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the notary public to the Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death of the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall have the duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge.

SEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and photographically reproducible mark, image or impression of the official seal beside his signature on the notarial certificate of a paper instrument or document.

SEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals may not sell said product without a written authorization from the Executive Judge.

(b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the Executive Judge may issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals after verification and investigation of the latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee in the amount of Php 4,000 for the vendor and Php 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.

(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the date of its issuance and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar period upon payment of the authorization fee mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

. (d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon submission of a certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge. A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge.

(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal,

(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or impression of the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the completed Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer for four (4) years after the sale.

(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of name issued by the Executive Judge.

RULE VIII

NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES

SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The notarial form used for any notarial instrument or document shall conform to all the requisites prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all other provisions of issuances by the Supreme Court and in applicable laws.

SEC. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. - The notarial certificate shall include the following:

(a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;

(b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public;

(c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and

(d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.

RULE IX

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act. - A certificate of authority evidencing the authenticity of the official seal and signature of a notary public shall be issued by the Executive Judge upon request in substantially the following form:

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT

I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive Judge), certify that (name of notary public), the person named in the seal and signature on the attached document, is a Notary Public in and for the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic of the Philippines and authorized to act as such at the time of the document's notarization.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my signature and seal of this office this (date) day of (month) (year).

_________________

(official signature)

(seal of Executive Judge)

RULE X

CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Change of Name and Address.

Within ten (10) days after the change of name of the notary public by court order or by marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or business, the notary public shall submit a signed and dated notice of such fact to the Executive Judge.

The notary public shall not notarize until:

(a) he receives from the Executive Judge a confirmation of the new name of the notary public and/or change of regular place of work or business; and

(b) a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained.

The foregoing notwithstanding, until the aforementioned steps have been completed, the notary public may continue to use the former name or regular place of work or business in performing notarial acts for three (3) months from the date of the change, which may be extended once for valid and just cause by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding three (3) months.

SEC. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may resign his commission by personally submitting a written, dated and signed formal notice to the Executive Judge together with his notarial seal, notarial register and records. Effective from the date indicated in the notice, he shall immediately cease to perform notarial acts. In the event of his incapacity to personally appear, the submission of the notice may be performed by his duly authorized representative.

SEC. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court

to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have resigned their notarial commissions and the effective dates of their resignation.

RULE XI

REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS

SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:

(1) fails to keep a notarial register;

(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts;

(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following;

(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;

(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;

(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;

(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;

(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;

(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;

(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and

(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.

(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint.

If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.

(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public, subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).

SEC. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall at all times exercise supervision over notaries public and shall closely monitor their activities.

SEC. 3. Publication of Revocations and Administrative Sanctions. - The Executive Judge shall

immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have been administratively sanctioned or whose notarial commissions have been revoked.

SEC. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary public dies before fulfilling the obligations in Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule VII, the Executive Judge, upon being notified of such death, shall forthwith cause compliance with the provisions of these sections.

RULE XII

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:

(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;

(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and

(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct.

SEC 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The Executive Judge concerned shall submit semestral reports to the Supreme Court on discipline and prosecution of notaries public.

RULE XIII

REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules, including issuances of the Supreme Court inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or accordingly modified.

SEC. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2004, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines which provides sufficiently wide circulation.

Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004.

(Sgd.) Davide, Jr. C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynarez-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.

V. A.M. No. 02-8-02-SC, Aug. 13, 2002, Re: Proposed Rules Requiring Notaries Public to Hold Office at a Specific and Appropriate Address, Addresses)

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

A.M. No. 02-8-2-SC             August 13, 2002

RE: PROPOSED RULES REQUIRING NOTARIES PULIC TO HOLD OFFICE AT A SPECIFIC AND APPROPRIATE ADDRESS/ADDRESSES

RESOLUTION

Acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Legal Matters, the Court resolved to APPROVE the proposed rules requiring notaries public to hold office at a specific and appropriate address / addresses.

These Rules shall take effect on September 2, 2002 following its publication in a newspaper of general

circulation and shall supercede Administrative Circular No. 11-93, dated June 30, 1993.

August 13, 2002

(signed)

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.Chief Justice

JOSUE N. BELLOSILLOAssociate Justice

REYNATO S. PUNOAssociate Justice

JOSE C. VITUGAssociate Justice

VICENTE V. MENDOZAAssociate Justice

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANAssociate Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZAssociate Justice

RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

RULES REQUIRING NOTARIES PUBLIC TO HOLD OFFICE AT A SPECIFIC AND APPROPRIATE ADDRESS / ADDRESSES

WHEREAS, there is a need to improve supervision by Executive Judges of notaries public in the exercise of their functions; and

WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent the office of the notary public from being demeaned and degraded by improper practices such as the performance of notarial services along sidewalks and in other inappropriate public places.

NOW, THEREFORE, the following rules are hereby prescribed for observance by all concerned:

1. A notary public shall render notarial services only in his office. On certain exceptional occassions or situations, notarial services may be performed in the following sites:

(a) Public offices, convention halls, and other appropriate public places for the purpose of administering oaths of office;

(b) At the request of the parties, public function areas in hotels and other appropriate places for the signing of the contracts, deeds, and other documents requiring notarization;

(c) Residence of any party of a contract, deed, or other document requiring notarization;

(d) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to a contract is confined for treatment;

(e) Any place where for legal reason a party to a contract, deed, or other document requiring notarization may be confined, and;

(f) Such other places as may be dictated because of emergency.

In all of the above instances, the notary public concerned shall ensure that his functions is performed with utmost solemnity and dignity.

2. Pursuant to these rules, applications for the issuance of commissions of notaries public, or renewal thereof, as well as the monthly reports required by S246 of Act No. 2657, shall also state the following:

(a) The office address / addresses of the applicant / notary public;

(b) The legal basis (whether by lease or otherwise) on which the applicant / notary public is holding office in the said address / addresses; and

(c) That the applicant / notary public will inform the Executive Judge within ten (10) days of any change in the previously given office address / addresses.

Any false statement therein or any violation thereof shall be a ground for the denial of the application or the revocation of the notarial commission as so provided in Act. No. 2657, S249, pars. (g) and (h) without prejudice to the imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions against the offender.

In the supervision of notaries public, Executive Judges may avail of themselves of the assistance of the local chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines within their respective jurisdictions.lawphil.net

These Rules shall take effect on September 2, 2002 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation and shall supercede Administrative Circular No. 11-93, dated June 30, 1993.

VI. Cruz-Sillano v Pangan (A.C. 5851, November 25, 2008)

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 5851             November 25, 2008

GRACE DELA CRUZ-SILLANO, complainant vs.ATTY. WILFREDO PAUL D. PANGAN, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a complaint filed by Grace Dela Cruz-Sillano (complainant) against Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan (respondent) for disbarment for having conspired in forging a Special Power of Attorney.

The Facts

The facts in the Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) read as follows:

Respondent is accused of forging the signature of an affiant [Zenaida A. Dela Cruz] in a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The affiant in this SPA is the mother of complainant. The SPA appears to have authorized a certain Ronaldo F. Apostol to "process, claim, receive and encash checks representing my (affiant's) benefits arising from my insurance policy with the Insular Life Assurance Company Ltd." Consequently, respondent also stands accused of notarizing a document in the absence of the affiant. Complainant specifically alleges:

"That on March 15, 1999, Atty. Pangan conspiring and confederating with the other accused R.F. Apostol falsified and forged a document denominated as a Special Power of Attorney (by forgering [sic] the signature of my deceased mother and notarizing the same), which empowered the accused Ronaldo F. Apostol to process, receive claim and encash check representing benefits arising from the insurance policy of my deceased mother Zenaida Apostol de la Cruz (of which I am the beneficiary). The accused successfully encash [sic] the check in the amount of P71,033.53 to my damage and prejudice."

The charge of forgery is premised on complainant's claim that when the SPA was notarized on 15 March 1999, the affiant therein was bedridden in the United States, who was sick with malignant cancer of the lungs, and that, in fact, the alleged affiant died on 27 May 1999 also in the United States. Complainant specifically alleges:

"The accused being both blood relatives were well aware that my deceased mother who resides in the U.S. of A has been bedridden for several months as she was diagnosed to be suffering from Malignant Cancer of the Lungs, prior to her death on May 27, 1999. Hence for obvious reasons, my deceased mother could not have on March 15, 1999 executed, prepared and signed the Special Power of Attorney and sworn to the same before Atty. Pangan. xxx"

In his comment Atty. Pangan claims that the "act of notarizing was done in accordance with law and practice." Moreover, respondent emphasized that:

"4. Respondent has no participation in the submission and processing of the insurance proceeds. Respondent Notary Public could not have made use of the alleged falsified document. He cannot be considered as having benefited from the falsified document as he was never a grantee nor a beneficiary [in] said document. He did not benefit from the insurance proceeds. He never conspired with anyone in the commission of any crime much less has taken advantage of his position as notary public to defraud any person or entity."1

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a Report2 dated 8 July 2005, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Doroteo B. Aguila

(Commissioner Aguila) found respondent guilty of notarizing the SPA in the absence of affiant. Commissioner Aguila found that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for 30 days, and that he be barred from acting as notary public, if he is presently one, or from being given a commission to act as such, for a period of one year from the effectivity of the recommended penalty.

In a Resolution3 dated 22 October 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Aguila. The IBP Board of Governors suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration dated 12 December 2005 before the IBP Board of Governors. In a Resolution dated 28 January 2006, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to deny respondent's motion for reconsideration since the Board had no jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed to this Court.

The Ruling of the Court

We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he made it appear that Zenaida A. Dela Cruz personally appeared before him and executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Ronaldo Apostol.

Respondent Notarized a Special Power of Attorneyin the Absence of the Affiant

Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law provides:

Sec. 1. (a) The acknowledgement shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgement shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Moreover, Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 emphasizes the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public:

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -

(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

In the present case, respondent does not deny notarizing the questioned Special Power of Attorney. Moreover, instead of exculpating respondent, the affidavits presented by respondent prove that affiant was not in the personal presence of respondent at the time of the notarization.

Ronaldo F. Apostol, respondent's co-accused in the criminal complaint for estafa through falsification filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, executed an affidavit absolving respondent from

any wrongdoing.

1. I was appointed by my Aunt Zenaida Apostol-Dela Cruz to process and claim her benefits arising from her insurance policy with the Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd.;

2. Pursuant to this authority I caused the preparation of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing me to process, claim, receive and encash said insurance policy;

3. I proceeded to the law office of a distant relative - Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan to have the said Special Power of Attorney notarized;

4. Atty. Pangan was, however, not present in their office so I asked the staff how I can facilitate the notarization of the said document;

5. The staff told me that as long as the grantor will appear in their office they can vouched [sic] the due execution of the document and they will just include the documents among the "for signature" so that Atty. Pangan can sign them when he comes back from a hearing;

6. I left the law office and fetch [sic] an aunt of mine. When I returned to the office, I told the staff that my aunt is too sick to alight from the car;

7. Being a known relative of Atty. Pangan in the law office I was able to convince the staff that said aunt was indeed the one who executed the document;

8. The following day I returned to the law office and the staff gave me the notarized Special Power of Attorney;

9. That I have not paid for said notarization as I have been engaging the services of Atty. Pangan for free;

10. When a feud between me and my cousin who is in the United States developed and their [sic] was a lack of communication between us, I was surprised that the matter of claiming the insurance policy was brought when almost everybody in our immediate family knew that I caused the claiming of the said insurance and hold it in trust until we can communicate with my cousin;

11. In fairness to Atty. Pangan, he has nothing to do with whatever wrongdoings I have committed in the claiming of the insurance policy;

12. The claiming was done in good faith as no one else in the immediate family can process the same;

x x x.4 (Emphases added)

Laila N. Mesiano and Manolito F. Farnal, members of the staff of respondent's law office, also executed a joint affidavit in ostensible support for respondent.

2.Among our duties is to prepare notarial documents for signature of our two (2) notaries public, Atty. Tiburcio A. Edaño, Jr. and Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan;

3.The two are very strict in requiring the personal appearance of signatories to documents especially in documents requiring acknowledgments;

4.Even those documents which were left by clients for notarials and those which we brought to them while they were having hearing in the nearby Hall of Justice were notarized only if we will vouched [sic] that the said client indeed personally appeared in our office and executed the said document;

5.This practice in notarizing documents are relaxed only in cases where mere jurat were required;

x x x.5

Respondent's comment gives us an insight as to how the present administrative complaint arose:

6.If there was fraud, it may not have even been committed in the execution of the Special Power of Attorney nor in the processing of the claim but in the way the insurance proceeds was shared. Will complainant question the execution of the alleged document had the grantee turned over to her the insurance proceed [sic]? If respondent has conspired with said grantee in the commission of the fraudulent act, he would not have notarized the document and let other notary public do the notarizing.

7.Respondent has always accommodated his relatives in their legal problems for free. The imputation upon him of any wrong doings in his practice as notary public is only a result of the existing feud between the heirs of the deceased and her relatives.6

In his defense, respondent objected to the evidence presented against him thus:

All the exhibits were not properly identified and their execution were not proven by the complainant.

In fact the original nor a certified true copy of the questioned Special Power of Attorney was never presented. The complainant never appeared to identify her complaint affidavit. The Certificate of Death is a mere xerox copy. The alleged record of the criminal case allegedly filed were mere xerox copies and the alleged passport was not properly identified by the issuing authority.

In view if the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the said exhibits are inadmissible in evidence.

The purpose for which the said exhibits was [sic] being offered is likewise being objected to.

The records of the criminal case does [sic] not prove that the accused have committed the crime charged. They are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The death certificate of the alleged signatory does not show that she could not have signed the alleged document as the face of the questioned document showed that it was executed before the alleged passing of the signatory.

The passport does not readily show that the signatory could not have signed the said document nor will it conclusively tell that the signatory could not have signed the said document.

The hospital records does [sic] not show that the signatory could not have possibly executed the said document.

The check voucher does not show that the herein respondent was not a party thereto.

The questioned Special Power of Attorney alone does not prove that the signature appearing thereon in [sic] not the signature of the signatory.7

The complaint before us is an administrative case where a fact is deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion.8 Aside from his lame objections, respondent does not categorically deny notarizing the questioned Special Power of Attorney in the absence of the affiant. The seriousness of respondent's omission is not lessened by his claim that he "has always accommodated his relatives in

their legal problems for free."

The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed.9

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantial public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge his sacred duties which are dictated by public policy and, as such, impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.10

Respondent's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainant's rights but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Hence, respondent should be liable for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.11 Respondent must accept the consequences of his professional indiscretion. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent's notarial commission should not only be suspended but respondent must also be suspended from the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Wilfredo Paul D. Pangan GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year; REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, effective immediately, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOChief JusticeChairperson

RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAAssociate Justice

*DANTE O. TINGAAssociate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Footnotes

* As replacement of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro who is on official leave per Special Order No. 539.

1 Rollo, pp. 80-81.

2 Id. at 80-83.

3 Id. at 77.

4 Id. at 66.

5 Id. at 65.

6 Id. at 19-20.

7 Id. at 85.

8 Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.

9 Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8, 16 (2002).

10 Arrieta v. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932, 937-938 (1997).

11 Follosco v. Atty. Mateo, 466 Phil. 305, 313 (2004).

VII. Dela Cruz, et al. v Dimaano, Jr., (A.C. 7781, September 12, 2008)

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 7781, September 12, 2008]

DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ, MILAGROS L. PRINCIPE, NARCISA L. FAUSTINO, JORGE V. LEGASPI, AND JUANITO V. LEGASPI, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR., RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO JR., J.:

In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., Dolores L. Dela Cruz, Milagros L. Principe, Narcisa L. Faustino, Jorge V. Legaspi, and Juanito V. Legaspi alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. Complainants further alleged that: (1) their signatures in this document were forged; (2) they did not appear and acknowledge the document on July 16, 2004 before respondent, as notarizing officer; and (3) their purported community tax certificates indicated in the document were not theirs.

According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the document in his presence. In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased parents' property in Tibagan, San Miguel, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-303936 and sell the same to the Department of Public Works and Highways.

In his answer, respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of the document in question, but admitted having indeed notarized it. He explained that "he notarized [the] document in good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of, each other for 30 years. Finally, respondent disclaimed liability for any damage or injury considering that the falsified document had been revoked and canceled.

In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner of the Office of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), found the following as established: (1) the questioned document bore the signatures and community tax certificates of, and purports to have been executed by, complainants and Navarro; (2) respondent indeed notarized the questioned document on July 16, 2004; (3) complainants did not appear and acknowledge the document before respondent on July 16, 2004; (4) respondent notarized the questioned document only on Navarro's representation that the signatures appearing and community tax certificates were true and correct; and (5) respondent did not ascertain if the purported signatures of each of the complainants appearing in the document belonged to them.

The Commission concluded that with respondent's admission of having notarized the document in question against the factual backdrop as thus established, a clear case of falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had been committed when he stated in the Acknowledgment that:

Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila, personally came and appeared the

above-named persons with their respective Community Tax Certificates as follows:

x x x x

who are known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledge to me that the same is their own free act and deed. x x x

For the stated infraction, the Commission recommended, conformably with the Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Ramos,[1] that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year; that his notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked; and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary public for two (2) years. On September 28, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-147, adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the Commission.

We agree with the recommendation of the Commission and the premises holding it together. It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in accordance with the following requirements:

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.[2]

Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.[3] Furthermore, notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and date of issue as part of certification.[4] Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice[5] now requires a party to the instrument to present competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12 provides:

Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.--The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development certification [as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008]; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.[6] A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized documents will be eroded.

WHEREFORE, for breach of the Notarial Law, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., if still existing, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Decision, with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act shall be dealt with more severely.

Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it entered into respondent's personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Brion, JJ., concur.

[1] A.C. No. 6649, June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 352.

[2] Cited in 2 L.M. Tañada & F.A. Rodrigo, Modern Philippine Legal Forms 763 (6th ed., 1997).

[3] Domingo v. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 227, 238; Lopena v. Cabatos, A.C. No. 3441, August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 419, 426.

[4] Soriano v. Basco, A.C. No. 6648, September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 423, 429.

[5] Took effect on August 1, 2004.

[6] Domingo, supra note 3

VIII. Gonzales v Atty. Padiernos (A.C. No. 6713, December 8, 2008)

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 6713             December 8, 2008

ZENAIDA B. GONZALES, petitioner, vs.ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment of Atty. Narciso Padiernos (respondent) filed on May 12, 2003 by Ms. Zenaida B. Gonzales (complainant) with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan conducted the fact-finding investigation on the complaint.

Commissioner San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation1 dated September 10, 2004 to the IBP Board of Governors who approved this Report and Recommendation in a resolution dated November 4, 2004.

In a letter2 dated March 14, 2005, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan transmitted to the Office of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (retired) a Notice of Resolution3 and the records of the case.

The Factual Background

The complainant alleged in her complaint for disbarment that on three (3) separate occasions the respondent notarized the following documents: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated July 16, 1979 which disposed of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija in favor of Asterio, Estrella and Rodolfo, all surnamed Gonzales; (2) a Subdivision Agreement5 dated September 7, 1988 which subdivided her property among the same persons; and (3) an affidavit of Non-Tenancy6 dated March 3, 1988 which certified that her property was not tenanted. All three documents were purportedly signed and executed by complainant. All three documents carried forged signatures and falsely certified that the complainant personally appeared before the respondent and that she was "known to me (the respondent) to be the same person who executed the foregoing and acknowledged to me that the same is her own free act and voluntary deed." The complainant claimed that she never appeared before respondent on the dates the documents were notarized because she was then in the United States.

The respondent filed his Answer7 on June 16, 2003. He admitted that he notarized the three documents, but denied the "unfounded and malicious imputation" that the three documents contained the complainant's forged signatures. On the false certification aspect, he countered that "with the same or identical facts obtained in the instant case, the Highest Tribunal, the Honorable Supreme Court had this to say – That it is not necessary to know the signatories personally, provided he or she or they signed in the presence of the Notary, alleging that they are the same persons who signed the names."

On October 13, 2003, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of verification and notification of the date of hearing.8

On December 19, 2003, complainant amended her complaint.9 This time, she charged respondent with gross negligence and failure to exercise the care required by law in the performance of his duties as a notary public, resulting in the loss of her property in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, a 141,497 square meters of mango land covered by TCT NT-29578. The complainant claimed that because of the respondent’s negligent acts, title to her property was transferred to Asterio Gonzales, Estrella Gonzales and Rodolfo

Gonzales. She reiterated that when the three documents disposing of her property were notarized, she was out of the country. Estrella Gonzales Mendrano, one of the vendees, was also outside the country as shown by a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) on September 14, 1989.10 She likewise claimed that Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales (the widow of Rodolfo Gonzales, another vendee) executed an affidavit describing the "Deed of Absolute Sale and Subdivision Agreement" as spurious and without her husband's participation.11 The affidavit further alleged that the complainant’s signatures were forged and the respondent did not ascertain the identity of the person who came before him and posed as vendor despite the fact that a large tract of land was being ceded and transferred to the vendees.

The complainant prayed for the revocation of the respondent's notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law due to "his deplorable failure to hold the importance of the notarial act and observe [with] utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary public which include the ascertainment that the person who signed the document as the very person who executed and personally appeared before him."

On May 3, 2004, the complainant moved that the case be considered submitted for resolution in view of respondent's failure to answer the amended complaint.12

The IBP Findings

In her report to the IBP Board of Governors,13 Commissioner San Juan categorically noted the respondent’s admission that he notarized the three documents in question – the Deed of Absolute Sale on July 16, 1979; the Subdivision Agreement on September 7, 1988 and the affidavit of Non-Tenancy on March 3, 1988. Commissioner San Juan also noted that the complainant’s documentary evidence supported her claim that she never executed these documents and never appeared before the respondent to acknowledge the execution of these documents. These documentary evidence consisted of the certification from the BID that complainant did not travel to the Philippines on the dates the documents were allegedly notarized;14 and the affidavit of Guadalupe Ramirez Gonzales described above.15

Commissioner San Juan found that the respondent had no participation in the preparation or knowledge of the falsity of the spurious documents, and found merit in the complainant's contention that the respondent "was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public." She faulted the respondent for not demanding proof of the identity of the person who claimed to be complainant Zenaida Gonzales when the documents were presented to him for notarization. She concluded that the respondent failed to exercise the diligence required of him as notary public to ensure the integrity of the presented documents. She recommended that the respondent's notarial commission be revoked and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.

The Court's Ruling

Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice16 provides:

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and present an integrally complete instrument on document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purpose stated in the instrument or document, declares

that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity that he has the authority to sign in that capacity."

Under the given facts, the respondent clearly failed to faithfully comply with the foregoing rules when he notarized the three documents subject of the present complaint. The respondent did not know the complainant personally, yet he did not require proof of identity from the person who appeared before him and executed and authenticated the three documents. The IBP Report observed that had the respondent done so, "the fraudulent transfer of complainant's property could have been prevented."

Through his negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public resulting in the loss of property of an unsuspecting private citizen, the respondent eroded the complainant’s and the public’s confidence in the notarial system; he brought disrepute to the system. As we held in Pantoja Mumar vs. Flores,17 he thereby breached Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes) as well as Rule 1.01 of the same Code (which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct).

The respondent should be reminded that a notarial document is, on its face and by authority of law, entitled to full faith and credit. For this reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the formalities intended to ensure the integrity of the notarized document and the act or acts it embodies.18

We are not persuaded by the respondent's argument that this Court, in a similar case or one with identical facts, said "that it is not necessary to know the signatories personally provided he or she or they signed in the presence of the notary, alleging that they are the persons who signed the names." The respondent not only failed to identify the cited case; he apparently also cited it out of context. A notary public is duty bound to require the person executing a document to be personally present, and to swear before him that he is the person named in the document and is voluntarily and freely executing the act mentioned in the document.19 The notary public faithfully discharges this duty by at least verifying the identity of the person appearing before him based on the identification papers presented.

For violating his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public, as well as for the grave injustice inflicted on the complainant, it is only proper that the respondent be penalized and suffer the consequences of his acts. We note in this regard that in her amended complaint, the complainant no longer sought the disbarment of respondent; she confined herself to the revocation of the respondent’s notarial commission and his suspension from the practice of law. Thus, the recommendation of the IBP is for revocation of his notarial commission and for his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. We approve this recommendation as a sanction commensurate with the transgression committed by the respondent as a member of the bar and as a notary public.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. NARCISO PADIERNOS of 103 Del Pilar Street, Cabanatuan City, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, and his notarial commission is hereby REVOKED.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

Chairperson

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice

DANTE O. TINGAAssociate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 53-57.

2 Rollo, p. 51.

3 Id, p. 52.

4 Annex "A", Complaint; id., p. 2.

5 Annex "B", Complaint; id., p. 3.

6 Annex "C", Complaint; id., p. 4.

7 Id., pp. 6-7.

8 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

9 Id., pp. 20-23.

10 Id., p. 31

11 Id., p. 32

12 Rollo, p. 47

13 Supra note 1, p. 1

14 Supra note 10, p. 3

15 Supra note 11, p. 3

16 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

17 A.C. No. 5426, April 4, 2007; 520 SCRA 470.

18 Traya Jr. v. Villamor, A.C. No. 5595, February 6, 2004, 422 SCRA 293.

19 Social Security Commission v. Coral, A.C. No. 6249, October 24, 2004; 440 SCRA 291.